Findings:
·
Trees have great value, both aesthetic and economic, and Connecticut residents
not only take great pride in their beauty, but benefit significantly from them.
Testimony presented by the Urban Forestry unit of DEEP showed the heating
and cooling costs of a home were lowered with the presence of appropriate
trees.
·
Trees knocked down 90% of the utility wires that fell in Tropical Storm Irene.
·
Data presented to the Two Storm Panel indicated that Connecticut has one of the
most dense tree canopies in the United States (# 1 in the U.S. for our
Wildland/Urban Interface tree density). Connecticut’s tree profile, also, revealed
trees with larger circumferences than average. UIL Holdings estimated that over
300,000 trees are planted in the utility pole rights of way (ROW) in its 17 town
territory.
·
Tree trimming and removal budgets consist of four sources:
Source of Tree Trimming Budget Amount of Budget
Municipal (Used primarily for maintaining health of town trees, not for utility rights-of-way)
Approximately $10 million a year
Connecticut Dept. of Transportation (Used primarily for roadway clearance and safety)
$550,000 per year
Telecommunications companies Failed to provide a tree trimming budget to Two Storm Panel
CL&P (For 143 towns) $24,625,000
UI (For 17 towns) $3,418,883
·
In its proposal to harden or strengthen its pole and wire infrastructure that CL&P
submitted to the Two Storm Panel, the company recommended that they be
approved to spend $366 million over the next ten years, essentially a 50%
increase over what CL&P spent in the previous ten years, on tree trimming and
vegetation management.
·
There does not exist in Connecticut specific industry standards for tree trimming
aside from the safety standards in ANSI Z 133.1 and OSHA 1910.269 and the
operation standards in the ANSI A 300 series to direct the actions of tree wardens
or of those performing utility pruning.
·
There are also no criteria by which a person may be appointed a tree warden.
Recommendations:
20)
Conduct a state -wide tree risk assessment and prioritization schedule
particularly targeting hazardous trees.
21)
Establish a state-wide Hazardous Tree Removal Fund that will provide
matching grants to homeowners for the removal of trees on private property
that endanger utility wires.
22)
1.5 % of all funds approved for utility vegetation management by PURA
should be used to fund the private property Hazardous Tree program for 5
years.
23)
Establish a State Vegetation Management Task Force (SVMTF) that will
develop standards for road side tree care in Connecticut, vegetation
management practices and schedules for utility rights of way, right tree/right
place standards, licensing standards for tree wardens, municipal tree
inventories and pruning schedules. This Task Force should consist of State,
municipal, utility and nonprofit environmental organizations. The
Commissioner of the DEEP or his/her designee should be its Chairperson.
24)
DEEP should convene appropriate State agencies, municipalities and utilities
for the purpose of creating a 5 year collaborative effort for an enhanced tree
maintenance program and the development of an educational effort regarding
the use of appropriate and diverse tree species in both public and private
spaces.
25)
At least four entities—electric utilities, municipalities, telecom utilities, and the
State of Connecticut—engage in tree trimming/removal activities that may
protect the necessary infrastructure. On a semiannual basis, these activities
should be coordinated amongst them to maximize the effectiveness of each
entity and goals/targets should be established. This activity would be
monitored through the SVMTF.
26)
Increase DOT Tree Maintenance budget by $1 million a year for three years
for road/ tree safety program.
27)
Legislation should be adopted providing for the removal of “hazard trees” from
private property by utilities or municipalities, which should include reasonable
protections for property owners.
INFRASTRUCTURE HARDENING
Findings:
·
Electric and telecom utility general maintenance was insufficient to effectively
protect the existing “pole and wire” infrastructure from natural disaster,
specifically the impact of falling trees/limbs on this infrastructure.
·
The panel reviewed several analyses of underground cable costs and feasibility
in Connecticut, using data from other states to make estimates on cost and
feasibility/effectiveness.
·
The utilities have maintained that undergrounding is not feasible in many areas
due to cost factors and damage caused by traffic, weather, and condensation.
The majority of studies that were reviewed, however, indicated that the
appropriate installation of underground cables protected the cables from traffic
and frost, and a common system of condensation elimination, used in many
states in extensive underground systems, prevented damage caused in this way.
·
In addition, the cost of underground cables in many areas, especially city and
town centers, is not drastically different from that of above-ground utilities, due to
the absence of impediments below the surface (i.e, ledge).
Recommendations:
28)
The Panel recommends that undergrounding be immediately studied by
DEEP in the areas discussed by the Panel and the utilities. Such study
should encompass feasibility of such undergrounding, the costs associated
with the undergrounding, as well as potential reliability issues associated with
undergrounded assets.
29)
Selective undergrounding of utilities and strengthening assets beyond the
requirements of the National Electric Safety Code (e.g., use of composite
poles and spacer cable) should be recommended to PURA, with the cost
shared between ratepayers and shareholders. All work should be permitted
by municipalities, and the utilities should be required to pre-plan with other
utilities with above-ground or below ground assets to reduce all costs for
upgrades, bringing evidence of such cooperation as a requirement for local
permitting.
30)
Pole custodians should develop an audited list of assets, including age of
assets and wind load, to better assist in managing a work plan for asset
strengthening. This list should be provided to the newly-created pole
administrator position (discussed in Chapter 8, Recommendation 74 of this
document) on an annual basis.
31)
As one utility needs to expand or build new infrastructure, it should consult
with other utilities, and where possible, co-locate such expansion with other
utilities to minimize the cost of burying them underground. Such an effort
would need to be coordinated through a combination of PURA and the Siting
Council so that utilities could be co-located.
